Or lack thereof. The article posits that the lack of government interference has caused the duopolies: the cost of entering a market is so high that only two bo

Or lack thereof. The article posits that the lack of government interference has caused the duopolies: the cost of entering a market is so high that only two bother, after that it's not worth it. The alternative is a system where the government pays the costs itself, or has the telecoms share the cost, thus reducing cost of entry and encouraging competition. The way you word it makes it sound as if the government is regulating where it shouldn't be, but that's not what the article says at all.